Who said this?
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Who said this?

  1. #1

    Who said this?

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I submit that this phrase gives any state the right to secede.

  2.   
  3. #2
    The Declaration of Independence
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  4. #3
    I submit that it is our duty to change the government to bring it back in line with what the founding fathers had in mind.
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post

    I submit that this phrase gives any state the right to secede.


    You are absolutely right. No college words used, no lawyer talk. Pretty simple plain English.
    I doubt you will find many armed federal employees that agree with the idea.
    In the beginning, the patriot is a scarce man -- brave, hated, and scorned. But when his cause succeeds, the timid join him. For then, it costs nothing to be a patriot. -- Mark Twain

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    699
    Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I submit that this phrase gives any state the right to secede.
    Actually it grants the right of the people to abolish and institute ANY form of government, state or federal. The Constitution explicitly grants the ultimate power to the people, it is the collective will of the citizens that is paramount in all things.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by 45ACP View Post
    Pick the thirty eight states' legislatures that we can get to call "constitutional conventions," then we can change it -- we can start all over. The other twelve states -- Kalifornia, New Germany, you know the rest -- can live with our changes; or, not "join."

    Just a thought ... from the Charter, as mentioned, and the Constitution.

    Later,
    A Constitutional Convention is a slippery slope. Do we really want to go down that road?
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative Wife & Mom View Post
    A Constitutional Convention is a slippery slope. Do we really want to go down that road?
    I agree. It would open up the possibility for the federal government to gut our constitution.
    By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7

  9. Quote Originally Posted by AvidshooterTX View Post
    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    I submit that this phrase gives any state the right to secede.
    That sounds like Thomas Jefferson.
    Sam Ragsdale
    AGCM(AW/SW) USN-Ret

    NRA Life Member

  10. #9
    There's very little danger in a constitutional convention. Whatever is decided upon has to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It is quite possible that whatever gets placed into the proposed constitution congress will enact by statute in order to avoid the new constitution being ratified and thereby becoming supreme law and binding their hands in perpetuity. Therefore the convention itself becomes leverage.

  11. #10

    Exclamation Constitution Threatened by New Constitutional Convention Initiative

    - Constitution Threatened by New Constitutional Convention Initiative
    Written by Larry Greenley
    Friday, 29 May 2009 14:24
    A new constitutional convention (Con-Con) initiative, "the Bill of Federalism Project," has been announced on a new website, The Bill of Federalism | As Proposed by Professor Randy Barnett, which was established by Michael Patrick Leahy on behalf of Professor Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism proposal. Although the website has apparently been active for a couple weeks already, I just came across it today. This new website provides further evidence for the troubling trend I reported on in my earlier blog, "Constitutional Convention Backers Want to Hijack the Tea Party Movement."

    As I explained in "A Con-Con Call to Action for Constitutionalists Across the USA," the high water mark of the balanced budget Con-Con movement occurred in 1983 when Missouri became the 32nd (out of the necessary 34) state to petition Congress to call a constitutional convention. Since that time members and allies of the John Birch Society have been successful in convincing state legislators to refrain from issuing any more Con-Con calls. Furthermore, these members and allies have helped convince state legislators in eleven states to rescind all of their previous constitutional convention calls with Oklahoma becoming the eleventh state earlier this month.

    For those of you who have not followed the Con-Con battles of the past three decades, the basic problem with Congress calling a constitutional convention at the request of 34 or more states in accordance with Article V of the Constitution is that leading constitutional scholars and judges have pointed out that the agenda of such a constitutional convention could not be specified by the state legislatures who would have started the whole process in motion in the first place. In brief, a constitutional convention could become a "runaway" convention similar to our original Constitution Convention in 1787 and come up with a radically new constitution, not just a few specific amendments. Even Article V's additional requirement that three fourths of the states must ratify any amendments emanating from a constitutional convention is not sufficient safeguard against a runaway convention given the biased media and political elites that would be involved in the whole process.

    Even James Madison, "Father of the Constitution," vigorously warned against the calling of a new constitutional convention in a letter on November 2, 1788, only one year after completing our Constitution:

    If a General Convention were to take place for the avowed and sole purpose of revising the Constitution, it would naturally consider itself as having a greater latitude than the Congress.... [I]t would consequently give greater agitation to the public mind; an election into it would be courted by the most violent partisans on both sides ... [and] would no doubt contain individuals of insidious views, who, under the mask of seeking alterations popular in some parts ... might have the dangerous opportunity of sapping the very foundations of the fabric.... Having witnessed the difficulties and dangers experienced by the first Convention, which assembled under every propitious circumstance, I should tremble for the result of a second, meeting in the present temper in America....

    Returning to where we started, the new Con-Con initiative on the new federalismamendment.com website, we are told:

    This final document will be presented to supportive state legislators in all 50 states, with the idea that they will use it as a "template" in drawing up bills to petition Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention to pass the ten amendments that comprise "The Bill of Federalism".

    This website has a page, "State by State Status," which lists all 50 states and marks ten of them as "First Ten Targeted State," namely, Alabama, Alaska, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. Based on this list, they appear to be targeting those states which have passed, or have a lot of support for, Tenth Amendment resolutions.

    We've already had a couple of reports of JBS members who have been asked to become part of this new Con-Con initiative. Even though this new initiative, based on Professor Randy Barnett's Bill of Federalism proposal, is only in the beginning stages, it has the benefit of support by a founding leader of the Tea Party movement, Michael Patrick Leahy, and the frequent appearances of Prof. Barnett and Judge Andrew Napolitano on the Glenn Beck TV Show speaking favorably of a constitutional convention. Thus, there's the possibility that a million or so Tea Party participants and over 600,000 Glenn Beck 9-12 Project members could be influenced to lobby state legislators on behalf of a Con-Con.

    If you are concerned about this new Con-Con threat to the Constitution, you need to inform the organizers of Tea Parties and the 9-12 Project in your area. You also need to be contacting your state legislators and providing the solid reasons against calling for a constitutional convention.

    Our best educational tool for preventing a constitutional convention remains our video, "Beware of Article V":
    YouTube - Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)

    We don't need to risk our Constitution in an unpredictable Article V constitutional convention process. Instead, we need to build a big enough constitutionalist grassroots movement to force Congress to adhere to the Constitution we already have. If Congress does not respond satisfactorily, the same movement can work to get a majority of constitutionalists nominated and elected to Congress over the next couple election cycles.

    Our end is freedom. Our means is the Constitution.
    Conservative Wife & Mom -- I'm a Conservative Christian-American with dual citizenship...the Kingdom of God is my 1st home and the U.S.A. is my 2nd.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast